TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Calco-Imports-Exports, Inc. D/B/A Calco-Hawaiian Mfg.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CALCO-IMPORTS-EXPORTS, INC. D/B/A Calco-Hawaiian Mfg., Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Calco-Imports-Exports, Inc., 621 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 24, 1980
Docket
No. 79-7259
Judges
Chambers, Pregerson, Bilby
Citations
621 F.2d 1029104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 28111980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16365

Opinion

The respondent company challenges the certification of the union on the ground that the union made misstatements in a letter that was mailed to the company employees eight days prior to the representation election. The Board concluded that the admittedly incorrect statements had been clarified in a second letter that the union circulated and that the second communication “adequately disspelled any misunderstanding.”

Counsel for the respondent has very ably and forcefully argued the company’s position first, that the Board’s conclusion cannot be sustained and, second, that an evidentiary hearing should have been provided. But in view of the broad discretion of the Board in such matters, and the relatively narrow standard of review, we conclude that the Board’s order should be enforced. On this record, we are impressed by the facts that 1) the company (though not obligated to do so) made no effort to clarify the mistake, 2) the company supplied no evidentiary support (other than the letters themselves) to indicate that the vote of any employee was actually affected by the course of events, and 3) the company (though perhaps not obligated to do so) made no effort to ask for an evidentiary hearing.

The Board’s order will be enforced.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1981: 119812026peak 1981 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list